>From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:00 AM
>To: Jim Barnett
>Cc: Legal Discuss
>Subject: Re: StAX (JSR 173) API source license
>
>On Apr 24, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
>
>> It is BEA's intent to offer both the "official" API and RI files
>> for JSR
>> 173 under the ASF 2.0 license on the JCP website for JSR 173. I am
>> working with Thorick Chow, the new BEA JSR 173 Spec Lead, Ellen
Siegel
>> (Sun Legal) and Harold Ogle (Sun JCP) to get this clarified and
>> cleaned
>> up on the JCP JSR 173 site.
>
>Good luck. I tried to do that for JSR 170 and was blocked by
>Sun legal (Jonathan Nimer). ...
I am not familiar with the conversation around the licensing of the spec
for JSR 170, or what might have been proposed there. With that caveat,
I do have a few comments:
The licensing of a JCP specification does have conditions placed on it
by the JSPA (http://www.jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/JSPA2.pdf).
IANAL, but it appears to me that AL2 does not meet those conditions. It
is probably not fair to blame Jonathan for insisting that those
conditions be adhered to.
That said, I would be interested to know if one of the following were to
occur:
- A JCP spec lead proposes to use a specification license which (at
least arguably) does meet the conditions of the JSPA, but still
encounters obstacles.
- A particular desirable use of a particular JCP spec is blocked because
of the JSPA conditions. I know there are a number of philosophical
objections to various pieces of the JSPA; what I am looking for here is
concrete, practical examples.
Finally, just a note that the JCP Executive Committees *are* elected
(well, mostly) and I know most of the representatives feel that they
represent the community as well as their particular organizations. So
if licensing or other issues working with the JCP arise, I am certainly
willing to hear about them and do what I can, as I am sure Geir is, and,
as I said, most of the other EC reps (who are all listed at
http://www.jcp.org/en/participation/committee).
Regards,
Eric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org